AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

To make it very simple, a Bomber hits 2/3 times.  So with 20 Bombers (or 10 AA50 HBs), 2/3 of those 20 dice will hit (on average).

20 dice @4 will hit 13.333 times, on average.

Incidentally, if you think 10 HBs average 11 hits, thats only 1.1 hits each - less than the average I calculated at 1.33 hit each.

I agree with ya. Yes some 20 die rolls I got with tester did give me 14 hits and 13 hits. I just went a bit lower in case there were 9 hits and 8 hits on tester.

But we all know ave die rolls don’t happen in our games.  :evil: :evil: :evil:

I go to bed many nights dreaming of ave die rolls in my games.  :-D

@SS:

I go to bed many nights dreaming of ave die rolls in my games.  :-D

Ahh, I’ve heard this before…. my lifelong A&A buddy says this a lot  :lol:

From the FAQ:

Page 12, Breakthrough Chart 2 – Heavy Bombers: The second sentence should replaced with: “You roll two dice for each bomber and select the best result when you attack or make a strategic bombing raid.”

I’ve done a little digging since I posed the question…

It turns out that “rule” was in a PDF at HGD; but it doesn’t seem to have ever made it into an official AH document:
http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

The Avalon Hill website no longer supports AA50, so it’s very unlikely this will ever become official.

I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them).  While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there.  As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.

@zooooma:

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

This document is outdated (March 2009). The last official FAQ (as mentioned by Krieghund) has been from September 2014.

@P@nther:

@zooooma:

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

This document is outdated (March 2009). The last official FAQ (as mentioned by Krieghund) has been from September 2014.

If AH released a more up-to-date FAQ, lead me too it!  Kreighund’s link takes me to a designer site - not an official Avalon Hill source.

AFAIK this proposed errata was never published by the producers of the game; who have the final only “official” word.

That thread (not even a PDF anymore) is about as official as LHTR for Revised.  These are fine option for so inclined tournament organisers, but they do not supplant the official rules.

@zooooma:

@P@nther:

@zooooma:

http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf

This document is outdated (March 2009). The last official FAQ (as mentioned by Krieghund) has been from September 2014.

If AH released a more up-to-date FAQ, lead me too it!  Kreighund’s link takes me to a designer site - not an official Avalon Hill source.

AFAIK this proposed errata was never published by the producers of the game; who have the final only “official” word.

That thread (not even a PDF anymore) is about as official as LHTR for Revised.

I was referring to Krieghund’s following post:

@Krieghund:

I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them).  While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there.  As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.

The link behind the words “still there” is :

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Errata.pdf

@P@nther:

I was referring to Krieghund’s following post:

@Krieghund:

I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them).  While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there.  As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.

The link behind the words “still there” is :

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Errata.pdf

Sorry - I missed that.
Thanks guys!

I suspect I will play by my out-of-date FAQ.  Not quite a house rule - just an older rules set,
Those nerfed HBs are truly garbage - scarcely better than regular Bombers.  :x

@zooooma:

If AH released a more up-to-date FAQ, lead me too it!  Kreighund’s link takes me to a designer site - not an official Avalon Hill source.

AFAIK this proposed errata was never published by the producers of the game; who have the final only “official” word.

That thread (not even a PDF anymore) is about as official as LHTR for Revised.  These are fine option for so inclined tournament organisers, but they do not supplant the official rules.

As I said, the publisher has dropped support for out-of-print games, so the designer’s site is the only official source of information for them that currently exists (save for disconnected web pages).  In any case, the FAQs that AH publishes come from the designer, and the ones on his site are the same as the ones that are (or used to be) on the publisher’s site.

This is kind of academic, seeing as AH FAQ & HGD FAQ are on the same page…

But I would argue that IF AH had not officially endorsed that FAQ it would not be official.  Dropping support is kind of irrelevant.  Star Wars: Queens Gambit is oop and unsupported - that doesn’t mean the designers can make “official” changes to the rules.  Rather it means the official rules are set in stone.

Again, this is academic.  WotC got behind HGD 100%.  If AH chose not to recognise the change, then we’d have a fun debate!

:roll:

Be cool man.
:-P

I had good cause to believe AH had not officially endorsed this rule - the FAQ link I followed came from this site!

When a designer retroactively wants to change a game rule after it’s published, and the publisher (apparently) does not acknowledge the change - it’s a very reasonable and defensible position that the publisher has the official word.

It’s not by fault AA.org has an out of date link and WotC has taken their link down.  No need for the eye-rolls, they’re not very friendly.  :)

If the designer wants to change a rule then he has the final say. It’s his game.  I’ll need as much as I need to.

question about turkey, can you pass trough the dardanelles into the black sea or not? I can not seem to find it in the rulebook  :? :?

@gtsg:

question about turkey, can you pass trough the dardanelles into the black sea or not? I can not seem to find it in the rulebook  :? :?

From what I remember it’s optional with most people playing that you can’t.

@gtsg:

question about turkey, can you pass trough the dardanelles into the black sea or not? I can not seem to find it in the rulebook  :? :?

It has been added to the original edition as one of the “Additional Optional Rules” (as part of the Official FAQ):

@AA50:

Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement
In order to maintain its neutrality, Turkey closed the narrow straits linking the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean, permitting no naval passage by any belligerent nation on either side. No sea units may
move into or out of sea zone 16, however air units may move through this sea zone freely.

@barney:

From what I remember it’s optional with most people playing that you can’t.

Right.  Yes, this game came out about 9 years ago, but I remember the '41 scenario was tilted toward the Axis but if you played (it was optional, you are right) with the Dardanelles closed, that went a long way toward making '41 fair.  Letting Italy hammer directly on Russia (The Caucasus IIRC) is brutal to the Allies.

This being a reprint, the FAQ still applies, so feel free to use the optional rules in the FAQ.